JETI Admin
Abstract
The delivery of net zero carbon building involves multi-stakeholders with diverse interests. These interests are often conflicting, but are yet essential in the delivery of net zero carbon buildings. Therefore, studies on stakeholder interest towards the development of net zero carbon building is important. However, comprehensive, and systematic review of this topic is still missing. Thus, this study adopts a bibliometric analysis to explore the research trends and clarify the state of studies in stakeholder interest towards the development of net zero carbon building. A quantitative method using a scientific mapping technique is employed to examine 335 research papers retrieved from Scopus database between the year 1988 and 2023. Findings of this study reveal the main hot topics in this research theme to include energy efficiency, climate change, decision making, intelligent building and environmental policies. Moreover, Journal of Cleaners Production, Energy research and social science, Building and Environment, Energy, Energy Efficiency were identified as the first five top journals outlet. Findings from this study demonstrate that United Kingdom has the highest research publications followed by United States, China, Italy and Germany. This study provides a view of the hot topics, trend, and dynamics of existing literature to serve as a future research direction for intending researchers.
References
[1] Cheng, B., Lu, K., Li, J., Chen, H., Luo, X., Shafique, M., 2022. Comprehensive assessment of embodied environmental impacts of buildings using normalized environmental impact factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 334, 130083.
[2] Liu, X., Hu, W., 2019. Attention and sentiment of Chinese public toward green buildings based on Sina Weibo. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 550-558.[3]Mishra R. An Overview of Microstrip. 2016.
[3] Cheekatamarla, P., Sharma, V., Shen, B., 2021. Sustainable Energy Solutions for Thermal Load in Buildings—Role of Heat Pumps, Solar Thermal, and Hydrogen-Based Cogeneration Systems. ASME Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Buildings and Cities, 2.
[4]. Häkkinen, T., Kuittinen, M., Ruuska, A., Jung, N., 2015. Reducing embodied carbon during the design process of buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 4, 1-13.
[5] Wuni, I.Y., Shen, G.Q., Osei-Kyei, R., 2019. Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy and Buildings, 190, 69-85.
[6] Cao, X., Li, X., Zhu, Y., Zhang, Z., 2015. A comparative study of environmental performance between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 131-143.
[7] Tam, V.W., Tam, C.M., 2008. Waste reduction through incentives: a case study. Building Research & Information, 36, 37-43.
[8] Zuo, J., Zhao, Z.-Y., 2014. Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 271-281.
[9] Ofek, S., Portnov, B.A., 2020. Differential effect of knowledge on stakeholders’ willingness to pay green building price premium: Implications for cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251.
[10] Zhao, X., Pan, W., 2017. Co-productive interrelations between business model and zero carbon building: A conceptual model. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7, 353-365.
[11] Xue, X., Zhang, R., Yang, R., Dai, J., 2014. Innovation in construction: a critical review and future research. International journal of innovation science, 6, 111-126.
[12] Lawania, K., Biswas, W.K., 2018. Application of life cycle assessment approach to deliver low carbon houses at regional level in Western Australia. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23, 204-224.
[13] Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative science quarterly, 116-145.
[14] Abdelaal, F., Guo, B.H.W., 2021. Knowledge, attitude and practice of green building design and assessment: New Zealand case. Building and Environment, 201, 107960.
[15] Falana, J., Osei-Kyei, R., Tam, V.W.Y., 2024. Towards achieving a net zero carbon building: A review of key stakeholders and their roles in net zero carbon building whole life cycle. Journal of Building Engineering, 82, 108223.
[16] Pan, W., Pan, M., 2020. A ‘demand-supply-regulation-institution’ stakeholder partnership model of delivering zero carbon buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 62.
[17] Wen, S., Qiang, G., 2022. Managing Stakeholder Concerns in Green Building Projects With a View Towards Achieving Social Sustainability: A Bayesian-Network Model. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10.
[18] Bahadorestani, A., Naderpajouh, N., Sadiq, R., 2020. Planning for sustainable stakeholder engagement based on the assessment of conflicting interests in projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118402.
[19] Karunathilake, H., Hewage, K., Brinkerhoff, J., Sadiq, R., 2019. Optimal renewable energy supply choices for net-zero ready buildings: A life cycle thinking approach under uncertainty. Energy and Buildings, 201, 70-89.
[20] Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., 2011. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 1382-1402.
[21] Wang, M., Liu, X., Fu, H., Chen, B., 2019. Scientometric of Nearly Zero Energy Building Research: A Systematic Review from the Perspective of Co-Citation Analysis. Journal of Thermal Science, 28, 1104-1114
[22] Osei-Kyei, R., Wuni, I.Y., Xia, B., Minh, T.T., 2020. Research Trend on Retirement Village Development for the Elderly: A Scientometric Analysis. Journal of Aging and Environment, 34, 402-416.
[23] Baarimah, A.O., Alaloul, W.S., Liew, M.S., Kartika, W., Al-Sharafi, M.A., Musarat, M.A., Alawag, A.M., Qureshi, A.H., 2022. A Bibliometric Analysis and Review of Building Information Modelling for Post-Disaster Reconstruction. Sustainability, 14, 393.
[24] Navarro Bringas, E., Godawatte, G.A.G.R., 2022. Shedding light on the efforts into the rehabilitation of a major culprit of carbon emissions: A scientometric analysis of net-zero in the built environment sector. Energy and Buildings, 266.
[25] Souley Agbodjan, Y., Wang, J., Cui, Y., Liu, Z., Luo, Z., 2022. Bibliometric analysis of zero energy building research, challenges and solutions. Solar Energy, 244, 414-433.
[26] Hosseini, M.R., Martek, I., Zavadskas, E.K., Aibinu, A.A., Arashpour, M., Chileshe, N., 2018. Critical evaluation of off-site construction research: A Scientometric analysis. Automation in Construction, 87, 235-247.
[27 Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., Pappas, G., 2008. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22, 338-342.
[28] Tijani, B., Nwaeze, J.F., Jin, X., Osei-Kyei, R., 2021. Suicide in the construction industry: Literature review. International Journal of Construction Management, 1-10.
[29] van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L., 2014. Visualizing Bibliometric Networks, in: Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D. (Eds.), Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 285-320.
[30] van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L., 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523-538